U.S soldier getting shot at in open and hit 4 times (Video) (Not Graphic)

[KingDot]

Annddd the arguing happens.

Should move to debate

[Canadian]

Annddd the arguing happens.

Should move to debate

should shut the fuck up.

[Denelf]

Nice post. Shows modern warfare technology at use.

Agree +1 lolol

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Clearly you're not getting the point. It is the government's job to protect us. I rather have excess spending used on stemming the flow of terrorism then going to border control. These men come back as shells to ensure OUR freedom. Someone has to do it. And don't be stupid, just because the UN hasn't found them doesn't mean they don't have them.

No, clearly you're not getting the point.
Whether we're there or not, we aren't some omnipresent God army that's going to be able to find every bad guy out there.
Don't think border patrol is important, yet you call me ignorant. You don't think it's possible for these guys to sneak over wet back style like a Mexican and slip a dirty bomb into the country? Or lets talk about the Islamic terrorist groups that have been accumulating in South America, sure they aren't very active at the moment, but they very well can be in the future. Concerning Iran, Israel has been doing nothing but attempting to goad the U.S. into a conflict with Iran.
I think Iran's president is fanatical sure, but he does have a point about double standards..at least being in his position.
We aren't in the position to be involved in another conflict. I completely agree with the presidents stance on this.

[HaxPro]

If i remember someone's iPod Touch saved an soldier life a long time ago.
It was placed somewhere near hearth , and someone shot in that place. The iPod was destroyed , but the guy was still Rockin.

[noob555]

[FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]

Are you that fucking retarded? When did I say anything about the government not protecting our rights?
You basically just reaffirmed the point I was trying to make. That being that the day we sign into law overly restrictive laws that impose on our freedoms, all in the name of "fighting terrorism" is the day that we let them win. That's exactly what they want, they want us to be afraid. I'm college educated kid, My family has a long history with the military,
dating back to the civil war so don't sit here and assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
I never once said that I think they should pull out immediately. I even brought up extraction being dangerous, I guess you missed that part. What I am saying is I'm against present and future campaigns. That we need to focus on nothing but extractions.
Like I said this war is not winnable. Russia already tried this shit years ago and failed.

I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us, all the while taking away our civil liberties.

So now to prove that When did I say anything about the government not protecting our rights? you're illogical as fuck. Here's a proof:

Original statements: 1. I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us, all the while taking away our civil liberties.
I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us. ~(m ^ b)[Statement implies m^b is true]
Therefore (m->b) If someone is a mindless fucking sheep, then the person begs the government to protect them.
If m->b , then all the while taking away our civil liberties
Let c represent our civil liberties getting taken away.
m->c

Using the chain rule, you basically said if there are mindless sheeps the government will take away our civil liberties.


If the government is imposing our freedom then they are taking away our civil liberties. (i->c)
We can conclude that they are imposing on our freedom because there are mindless fucking sheep that beg the government to protect us.
Original statement: That being that the day we sign into law overly restrictive laws that impose on our freedoms, all in the name of "fighting terrorism" is the day that we let them win.(let l represent laws)
l->i
therefore
l->c Laws are taking away our civil liberties(freedom).

Using my statement, if the government's job is to protect our freedom then they are not taking away our civil liberties. j->~c
Using modus tollens we can conclude ~j. The government's job isn't to protect our freedom.

Using your statements with mine(which you agreed on), what you basically said was:
The government's job isn't to protect our freedom.

WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING ILLOGICAL.
Clearly you went to a pretty shitty college.

[InCognito]

I HAVE THE SOLUTION; nuke Iraq.

[KingDot]

should shut the fuck up.

He mad.

But seriously..

You post something war related. You gonna get a debate.

herpmofuckingderp

[BluntGod_]

These soldiers are fucking dope , they can manage to stay calm in the midst of extreme warfare.

[Bernard]

These soldiers are fucking dope , they can manage to stay calm in the midst of extreme warfare.

i guess you get use to it after a while

[Sussie]

And whats important about it?

And how the hell did a camera get on a militar train zone?

(Oh, they were recording)


*Muslisms are not so bad, you should try to look at the catholic history that one is really fucked up"

[noob555]

tbh i have a massive hard on for typing that proof up.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

So now to prove that When did I say anything about the government not protecting our rights? you're illogical as fuck. Here's a proof:

Original statements: 1. I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us, all the while taking away our civil liberties.
I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us. ~(m ^ b)[Statement implies m^b is true]
Therefore (m->b) If someone is a mindless fucking sheep, then the person begs the government to protect them.
If m->b , then all the while taking away our civil liberties
Let c represent our civil liberties getting taken away.
m->c

Using the chain rule, you basically said if there are mindless sheeps the government will take away our civil liberties.


If the government is imposing our freedom then they are taking away our civil liberties. (i->c)
We can conclude that they are imposing on our freedom because there are mindless fucking sheep that beg the government to protect us.
Original statement: That being that the day we sign into law overly restrictive laws that impose on our freedoms, all in the name of "fighting terrorism" is the day that we let them win.(let l represent laws)
l->i
therefore
l->c Laws are taking away our civil liberties(freedom).

Using my statement, if the government's job is to protect our freedom then they are not taking away our civil liberties. j->~c
Using modus tollens we can conclude ~j. The government's job isn't to protect our freedom.

Using your statements with mine(which you agreed on), what you basically said was:
The government's job isn't to protect our freedom.

WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING ILLOGICAL.
Clearly you went to a pretty shitty college.

What part of "overly restrictive laws" and "all the while taking our civil liberties away" are you not understanding?
The only thing you proved here is that you have no fucking idea how to follow context.
I never even once insinuated that the government not protect us, that is you making imbecilic assumption and basically trying to flip my words.
What I was saying is that the government can keep us safe without violating our constitutional rights.
Why do you think there was a massive petition against an article in the NDAA act pertaining to U.S. citizens being locked up without trial?
This is one of many examples that I am talking about, obviously if the government is alerted to terrorist activity I support their action to deal with it however they see fit. But this should not come at the expense of a law abiding citizens freedom, and that certain article really makes no clear distinction.
It's basically, if you are suspected of terrorist activity you are being apprehended and dealt with without due process. That is a clear violation of our rights.
I love how you're saying I'm illogical here, also getting more of a kick out how you seem proud of your post as if you accomplished something.
You did, you accomplished distinguishing the fact that you're a moron with less than basic comprehension skills. Have fun with that boner ******.

[noob555]

No it's not being ignorant.
I'm not going to be a mindless fucking sheep and beg the government to protect us, all the while taking away our civil liberties.
I'm among the majority with this mentality. Like I said, tighten the borders up so the dirtbags can't slip in from there.
We can still beef up on security measures without sucking out every ounce of freedom that helped build the country.
This war hardly has the approval of the majority anymore, that goes for Canada as well.
So not sure what point you're trying to make, if any.Seems like you just want to get into a pointless debate

Sentence one: You deny ignorance
Sentence 2: You claimed the government was taking away our civil liberties because we have mindless sheeps which beg for protection
sentence 3: you claim to have a mentality that alot of people have
sentence4: You talk about moving funding to border control
sentence 5: you talk about Increasing security and not having any unconstitutional laws.
sentence 6:You claim the war didn't have approval in neither america nor canada
sentence 7: You don't see the point canadian is making
sentence 8: you think it's a pointless debate
what am i missing.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

[FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]

Are you that fucking retarded? When did I say anything about the government not protecting our rights?
You basically just reaffirmed the point I was trying to make. That being that the day we sign into law overly restrictive laws that impose on our freedoms, all in the name of "fighting terrorism" is the day that we let them win. That's exactly what they want, they want us to be afraid. I'm college educated kid, My family has a long history with the military,
dating back to the civil war so don't sit here and assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
I never once said that I think they should pull out immediately. I even brought up extraction being dangerous, I guess you missed that part. What I am saying is I'm against present and future campaigns. That we need to focus on nothing but extractions.
Like I said this war is not winnable. Russia already tried this shit years ago and failed.

sentence 1: you call me retarded because i called you willfully ignorant and illogical
sentence 2: you contradict yourself
sentence 3: You claim I'm backing up your self contradicting statements
sentence 4: you claim we've already lost the war( logical inference)
sentence 5: You talk about terrorism which is also self contradictory cause you just stated that the war was lost with unconstitutional laws
sentence 6: You brag about your family and your killer education
sentence 7: You call me out on misreading a point
sentence 8: You backup the point for no apparent reason
sentence 9: You continue to talk about extraction
sentence 10: You talk about how the war is unwinnable
sentence 11: You talk about previous failures in the area


I really don't think I'm TOO far off.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

What part of "overly restrictive laws" and "all the while taking our civil liberties away" are you not understanding?
The only thing you proved here is that you have no fucking idea how to follow context.
I never even once insinuated that the government not protect us, that is you making imbecilic assumption and basically trying to flip my words.
What I was saying is that the government can keep us safe without violating our constitutional rights.
Why do you think there was a massive petition against an article in the NDAA act pertaining to U.S. citizens being locked up without trial?
This is one of many examples that I am talking about, obviously if the government is alerted to terrorist activity I support their action to deal with it however they see fit. But this should not come at the expense of a law abiding citizens freedom, and that certain article really makes no clear distinction.
It's basically, if you are suspected of terrorist activity you are being apprehended and dealt with without due process. That is a clear violation of our rights.
I love how you're saying I'm illogical here, also getting more of a kick out how you seem proud of your post as if you accomplished something.
You did, you accomplished distinguishing the fact that you're a moron with less than basic comprehension skills. Have fun with that boner ******.

Really there's nothing to follow. You make one illogical statement after another, there is no complexity in any of your thoughts. Using your exact words I logically proved your statements cannot be true since they contradict each other. Really isn't flipping words when I'm creating connections with logic chains and logical inferences. Still contradicting yourself zzz refer to 1st quoted post. You can call the detaining of U.S. citizens wrong but really when observed from a greater scope you have to view it in the form of consequentialism. Seeing if the results of the end products justify the means. And I'm really getting a kick out of this because you're willfully being ignorant and you can't get over the fact that your arguments are based over logistical flaws.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Sentence one: You deny ignorance
Sentence 2: You claimed the government was taking away our civil liberties because we have mindless sheeps which beg for protection
sentence 3: you claim to have a mentality that alot of people have
sentence4: You talk about moving funding to border control
sentence 5: you talk about Increasing security and not having any unconstitutional laws.
sentence 6:You claim the war didn't have approval in neither america nor canada
sentence 7: You don't see the point canadian is making
sentence 8: you think it's a pointless debate
what am i missing.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------



sentence 1: you call me retarded because i called you willfully ignorant and illogical
sentence 2: you contradict yourself
sentence 3: You claim I'm backing up your self contradicting statements
sentence 4: you claim we've already lost the war( logical inference)
sentence 5: You talk about terrorism which is also self contradictory cause you just stated that the war was lost with unconstitutional laws
sentence 6: You brag about your family and your killer education
sentence 7: You call me out on misreading a point
sentence 8: You backup the point for no apparent reason
sentence 9: You continue to talk about extraction
sentence 10: You talk about how the war is unwinnable
sentence 11: You talk about previous failures in the area


I really don't think I'm TOO far off.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------



Really there's nothing to follow. You make one illogical statement after another, there is no complexity in any of your thoughts. Using your exact words I logically proved your statements cannot be true since they contradict each other. Really isn't flipping words when I'm creating connections with logic chains and logical inferences. Still contradicting yourself zzz refer to 1st quoted post. You can call the detaining of U.S. citizens wrong but really when observed from a greater scope you have to view it in the form of consequentialism. Seeing if the results of the end products justify the means. And I'm really getting a kick out of this because you're willfully being ignorant and you can't get over the fact that your arguments are based over logistical flaws.

"THE DAY WE SIGN INTO LAW "

If you don't know what tense that is in, it is in future.
I didn't say all of our freedoms are gone, I never once said I'm against protection.
I explained that I am all for it as long as it's done in a manner that doesn't impose on our freedom.
I didn't "brag" about my education. You basically assumed I was uneducated in your original post. I assured this was false.
I claimed we "lost" the war? This is you once again being a manipulative twat. I said it is a unwinnable war.
I went on to say that if we make laws that take our freedoms away, the terrorists win, they get what they want.
Your whole reply just shows your own ignorance, and I stand by my earlier response regarding your comprehension skills.
Your opinion differs from my own, so instead of bringing any kind of legitimate argument,
You're just going to attempt to numerically dissect every part of my response, hardly going into any detail,
but just making the claims that I contradicted myself over and over. Which is horseshit.

Here is a quote from president Obama regarding the NDAA act that got pushed through earlier this year.

"Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."


I guess you're going to say the president is "illogical" too. Closet Mitt fan?

Also, regarding my comments to Canadian: The kid has made at least 2 Canada Vs. United States threads in the past,
And in both of them he talked shit about this country and acted like a Johnny Canada nationalist.
So to be honest I don't respect a fucking thing he has to say about this country.